Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The case before CESTAT New Delhi involved fraudulent registration and utilization of duty-free scrips, leading to penalties. The appellant failed to comply with notification requirements for duty exemption, resulting in denial of benefits. The appellant purchased a forged and fraudulent scrip, failing to verify its authenticity as required by Foreign Trade Policy and exemption notifications. The appellant's lack of due diligence in verifying and producing the scrip at clearance led to the imposition of penalties. The principle of caveat emptor was applied, emphasizing the buyer's responsibility to make reasonable inquiries. The imposition of penalties under section 114A was upheld due to the appellant's failure to meet notification requirements and lack of genuine belief. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the penalties and confirming the demand.
The case before CESTAT New Delhi involved fraudulent registration and utilization of duty-free scrips, leading to penalties. The appellant failed to comply with notification requirements for duty exemption, resulting in denial of benefits. The appellant purchased a forged and fraudulent scrip, failing to verify its authenticity as required by Foreign Trade Policy and exemption notifications. The appellant's lack of due diligence in verifying and producing the scrip at clearance led to the imposition of penalties. The principle of caveat emptor was applied, emphasizing the buyer's responsibility to make reasonable inquiries. The imposition of penalties under section 114A was upheld due to the appellant's failure to meet notification requirements and lack of genuine belief. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the penalties and confirming the demand.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4800
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
